P-39 n-0 vs yak 9

[Shortround6]

The Yak-9 and P-39 were on the same side, it is completely sensible for the Russians to develop the Yak with strengths that the P-39 didnt have, it gives your opponent more problems to solve. If they were the same in every respect someone has done something wrong. The Spitfire Mk XIV and Tempest had strengths and weaknesses depending on altitude, it gave the LW two problems to solve.

Supply of P-39s was iffy, The Russians wanted more but depending on US supplies was not a sure thing. Turns out that the supply was pretty constant but they didn't know that then.

Yak-9s could present a problem to the Germans the LA-5 didn't, at least the 9D could. Substituting metal spars for the wood ones freed up a lot of space in the wing for fuel tanks, with little or no increase in drag.

Russians were also handicapped when the M-106 engine turned out to be a dog.

From Wiki but one of the source books has similar if not identical "language"

" Although reliable and easily installed in M-105-powered aircraft, VK-106 did not enter production because its cooling problems were not solved "

High lighting by me. Some Russian sources are masters of contradictions. Perhaps it is just poor translation?

 

[Just Schmidt]

Ok, to answer the original thread question after the necessary clearing up which yak-9, the first, was intended.

This the P-39 wins hands down, sorry to say, but the facts supports it.

To go by the raw performance numbers (I think it was Corsning that supplied those upthread) theP-39 N has a clear advantage, but let's add real life context.

The first Yak 9, obviously being the prototype, will when the P-39 eventually arrives in the USSR supposedly be much the worse for wear. It may still have the ability to fly straight and level, but considering that most kills are scored against enemies obliviously puttering steadily away and never see it coming, theP-39 exceedingly well documented total inability to fly straight and level will stand the unveary pilot in good steed. Imagine the frustration of a Luftwaffe pilot upon seeing his intended target, even when unsuspecting, somersaulting all over the sky and stubbornly refusing to stay in the gunsight for any appreciable amount of time. Anyway it will not be worth the bother, as the total unpredictability and confusion as to whether this is one of the P-39 that actually carried enough fuel to land the aircraft, will deny him any surety of a kill, as even if he manages to get a burst in its general direction, probability is it just dropped out of the sky on its own accord.

As for the late war Yak 9 with functioning uprated engine, raw performance should make it the winner, though. I know of no-body... make that I know of only one, who would ever claim a 1943 P-39 to be superior to the latest front line fighters of spring 1945.

I apologize in advance for posting this now, but even though the thread - being a P-39 thread - expectedly still will be active then, I have not the patience to wait until 1st. of April 2022 before posting it.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Trying to point out that even in a few months in late spring of 1943 you could have P-39Ns with two different fuel capacities vs Yak-9s with two different armament set ups and two different fuel capacities, the different fuel capacities will affect performance (not speed but climb and turn) depending on fuel state. I don't know which one/s War Thunder is using.

Please don't say P-39N-0 again. The first 120 P-39Ns had 120 gallons and the following ones had 87 gallons although kits were supplied to bring the tankage back up to 120 gallons.
How many kits the Russians got I don't know. Obviously in real life having an extra 33 gallons of Fuel in your P-39 allowed for it to do different missions just like the Russians found that the 9D could perform missions the "regular" 9 could not, the Yak-1, Yak-7B and La-5 also did not have the range/endurance of the Yak-9D. The extra range/endurance came with the weight penalty.

SO which "versions" is war thunder using?
The short range ones or the long range?

The Yaks used a single 12.7mm machine gun in the cowl but it had a much better rate of fire than the American .50s in the P-39 when synchronized so the difference in firepower there is not that far off as long as the ammo lasts.

The Russian 37mm gun fired 66% faster 250rpm vs 150rpm for a considerable advantage in firepower. It fired a similar weight projectile at a much higher velocity (900m/s vs about 610m/s) making deflection shooting easier and with the two guns in the Yak having similar velocities, trajectories and times of flight aiming at anything other than point blank range was easier.

So what are the armament setups in the planes in war thunder and does war thunder even take into account the differences in rates of fire or velocity?

Can you elaborate on the synchronized 12.7mm/.50cal MGs? Thanks.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I look forward to S Shortround6 much more incisive explanation, but my understanding was that Browning M2's and their variations did not lend themselves well to synchronization, and lost around 40% of their rate of fire when in those positions. Whereas the Berezin UB 12.7mm had a higher rate of fire to begin with, and due to its mechanical design only lost around 20% when synchronized. So a single UB in the nose of a Yak, wasn't far off the destructive effect of two M2's in the nose of a P-39, with the added benefit of being a significantly lighter total installation.

 

[Schweik]

A little P-39 action. They kept the guns in the wings and probably the gear box armor too!

That was a really outstanding sequence compared to almost every Hollywood or British war film I've ever seen, in terms of the actual flying. What movie is that? The aircraft sequences looked like IL2-Stalingrad, but far more interesting in terms of the acrobatics and dog fighting maneuvers etc. than for example, the air combat scenes in Dunkirk where they just kind of gently weaved from side to side. I liked Dunkirk mind you, thought it was a great film, and also appreciated the use of antique aircraft, but I thought they really missed an opportunity with the air combat scenes. It could have been so much more exciting.

It's very rare that air combat is portrayed in any film or show in anything remotely like actual air combat. Typically the aircraft are shooting from 50 feet away from one another (and still somehow missing the hero) and the planes fly like UFO's. This sequence really gave the impression of the 1940's technology and the tactics of the pilots, I thought. A feel for being in the cockpit.

Kind of strange that they only showed the P-39 shooting it's wing guns, and a bit unlikely that (what looked like) a few rounds of .30 cal wing guns would bring down a FW 190 that quickly. Definitely doesn't work that way in Il2 lol.

 

[Schweik]

So?! Do you have adverse yaw with an engine out on the SM.79? How much rudder to you have to input on take off with the 109?

Il-2 is a lot better for this kind of thing. War Thunder is pretty much pure arcade game.

 

[Schweik]

Raise your flaps about the same time you raise the landing gear.
I am not a pilot but leaving the flaps down does NOT increase your rate of climb.

edit. Climb angle is not proportional to rate of climb.

I don't think that is true re: the flaps. I have read several pilot accounts, including by Greg Boyington in his autobiography, specifically mentioning using a partial flap setting to increase rate of climb on certain aircraft.

 

[Schweik]

As I tell the young whippersnappers at work

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill every time"

I use "youth and enthusiasm"

 

[Dimlee]

That was a really outstanding sequence compared to almost every Hollywood or British war film I've ever seen, in terms of the actual flying. What movie is that? The aircraft sequences looked like IL2-Stalingrad, but far more interesting in terms of the acrobatics and dog fighting maneuvers etc. than for example, the air combat scenes in Dunkirk where they just kind of gently weaved from side to side. I liked Dunkirk mind you, thought it was a great film, and also appreciated the use of antique aircraft, but I thought they really missed an opportunity with the air combat scenes. It could have been so much more exciting.

It's very rare that air combat is portrayed in any film or show in anything remotely like actual air combat. Typically the aircraft are shooting from 50 feet away from one another (and still somehow missing the hero) and the planes fly like UFO's. This sequence really gave the impression of the 1940's technology and the tactics of the pilots, I thought. A feel for being in the cockpit.

Kind of strange that they only showed the P-39 shooting it's wing guns, and a bit unlikely that (what looked like) a few rounds of .30 cal wing guns would bring down a FW 190 that quickly. Definitely doesn't work that way in Il2 lol.

This is a teaser of the movie about this man:
Mikhail Devyataev - Wikipedia
The combat scene is not strictly historical, since he claimed just one kill.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11892034/

Agree about the wing guns. Virtual pilots of FW 190 will be enraged.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I look forward to S Shortround6 much more incisive explanation, but my understanding was that Browning M2's and their variations did not lend themselves well to synchronization, and lost around 40% of their rate of fire when in those positions. Whereas the Berezin UB 12.7mm had a higher rate of fire to begin with, and due to its mechanical design only lost around 20% when synchronized. So a single UB in the nose of a Yak, wasn't far off the destructive effect of two M2's in the nose of a P-39, with the added benefit of being a significantly lighter total installation.

Would like to see your source on the .50s.

 

[Milosh]

Would like to see your source on the .50s.

Start here, Mission4Today - WWII Fighter Armament Effectiveness

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That was a really outstanding sequence compared to almost every Hollywood or British war film I've ever seen, in terms of the actual flying. What movie is that? T.

Agree and I have no Idea. Maybe one of our other members can identify

 

[pbehn]

Start here, Mission4Today - WWII Fighter Armament Effectiveness

From your link
The armament installations are listed in the second column. In some cases there were several alternative armament installations for the specified type of aircraft; of these one has been chosen. The (e) and (s) in the armament column indicate engine cannon and guns synchronised to fire through the propeller, respectively. Where the rate of fire for the synchronised installation is not known, a reduction of 25% of the unsynchronised rate of fire has been assumed. An exception was made for the MG 131 and MG 151/20 with their electrical priming systems (10%) and the big Browning .50 M2, Ho-103, and Ho-5 (40%), as these weapons reportedly suffered badly when synchronised.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Would like to see your source on the .50s.

https://quarryhs.co.uk/Synchro.pdf
This link calls it about a 26% reduction for the synchronized UB, reduced from over 1000 rounds per minute, to about 800. So a single Berezin firing at 800rpm, against two Brownings firing about 400-450 rounds per minute, would be fairly even as far as effect on target, but the Berezin installation would weigh less than half as much.

 

[MIflyer]

he Russians somehow managed to get the Germans to fight at low to modest altitudes,

Neither side had enough high altitude heavy bombers to even put on a decent airshow by US standards.

 

[pbehn]

Neither side had enough high altitude heavy bombers to even put on a decent airshow by US standards.

When you have a land front high altitude bombers are what you dont need, attempts to use them to affect the war below were very often a disaster and rarely a success. The Tragey of Lieutenant General Lesley McNair - The Highest Ranking U.S. Soldier Killed in World War Two

 

[GrauGeist]

There's also the fact that on the Eastern Front, enemy lines were often only minutes away, which meant a short flight time to combat.
Add to that the nature of the fighting often called for close air support and ground attack which meant defenders and escorts would be considerably lower than other theaters.

 

[MIflyer]

When you have a land front high altitude bombers are what you dont need

Which is why the factories in the Urals were as safe as can be. The Germans had no chance of attacking them, day or night.

Note that except for the Ju86P/R the Germans had no high altitude bombers other than experimental types. Their only high altitude heavies were a few captured B-17's and B-24's.

And the RAF had not much of a high altitude bomber force except for the 60 Wellington VI built and some two stage supercharged Mossies used mainly for pathfinders. Their only high altitude heavies were a few captured B-17's and B-24's.

As for Operation Cobra, Gen McNair was killed but the Germans were far worse off. The commander of the unit that got hit received a phone call, "Get ready! The Americans are coming!" He looked around at his shattered firing positions and upside down tanks and replied, "Get ready with what?"

 

[pbehn]

And the RAF had not much of a high altitude bomber force except for the 60 Wellington VI built and some two stage supercharged Mossies used mainly for pathfinders. Their only high altitude heavies were a few captured B-17's and B-24's.
"

From what I have read the high altitude Wellington just showed all the drawbacks to a high altitude bomber, it could be intercepted and it was very hard to hit anything. So it needed an escort and didnt do much at all.

 

[pbehn]

There's also the fact that on the Eastern Front, enemy lines were often only minutes away, which meant a short flight time to combat.
Add to that the nature of the fighting often called for close air support and ground attack which meant defenders and escorts would be considerably lower than other theaters.

Within days of the D Day landing it was the same in Normandy and also the same in Italy.